On 7/26/2020 12:18 AM, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 08:21:22PM CEST, jacob.e.kel...@intel.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/22/2020 9:52 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:30:05 +0000 Keller, Jacob E wrote:
>>>>> So perhaps we can introduce something like "component mask", which would
>>>>> allow to flash only part of the component. That is basically what Jacob
>>>>> has, I would just like to have it well defined.
>>>>
>>>> So, we could make this selection a series of masked bits instead of a
>>>> single enumeration value.
>>>
>>> I'd still argue that components (as defined in devlink info) and config
>>> are pretty orthogonal. In my experience config is stored in its own
>>> section of the flash, and some of the knobs are in no obvious way
>>> associated with components (used by components).
>>>
>>> That said, if we rename the "component mask" to "update mask" that's
>>> fine with me.
>>>
>>> Then we'd have
>>>
>>> bit 0 - don't overwrite config
>>> bit 1 - don't overwrite identifiers
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> Let's define a bit for "don't update program" when we actually need it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ok. And this can be later extended with additional bits with new
>> meanings should the need arise.
>>
>> Additionally, drivers can ensure that the valid combination of bits is
>> set. the drivers can reject requests for combinations that they do not
>> support.
>
> Makes sense.
>
>>
>> I can make that change.
>>
>> My preference is that "0" for a bit means do not overwrite while "1"
>> means overwrite. This way, if/when additional bits are added, drivers
>> won't need to be updated to reject such requests. If we make "1" the "do
>> not overwrite" then we'd have a case where drivers must update to ensure
>> they reject requests which don't set the bit.
>
> 0 should be default and driver should bahave accordingly.
>
Correct, and it's good to spell that out more clearly.
Thanks,
Jake
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jake
